Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian

[Silat]

Originally posted by Simaril
By your definition of science, can any theory of origins be scientific? Using your definition, can one time events like the origin of matter, or time, or life be tested by reproducable, disprovable processes?

I have trouble imagining any theory of origins being tested, except by observation of current findings (like an expanding universe), and extrapolation backwards.

I sense that's exactly what ID theorists are doing -- observing the nature and frequency of current mutations, extrapolating backwards, and finding things dont add up with randomness alone.

I would just like to point out that this isnt LEV's definition. It is THE definition.

[Widewing]

Well, the inescapable problem with Darwinian evolution is that it is open opposition to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Harold J. Morowitz (a biophysicist and Robinson Professor of Biology at the Krasnow Institute) writes the following:

"Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy.

 Dr. Hubert P. Yockey gives the subject of entropy and biology a probing and insightful treatment in his monograph, Information theory and molecular biology (26). He emphatically agrees that there are different kinds of entropy that do not correlate. "The Shannon entropy and the Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy... have nothing to do with each other" (p 313). But Shannon entropy (which pertains to information theory) makes no distinction between meaningful DNA sequences that encode life, and random DNA sequences of equal length. (Shannon wrote, "These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.") With no distinction between meaningful and meaningless sequences, Yockey is able to conclude that evolution does not create any paradox for Shannon entropy. Nevertheless, Yockey proves with impressive command of biology and statistics that it would be impossible to find the new genes necessary for evolutionary progress by the random search method currently in favor.

He is deeply sceptical of the prevailing theories of evolution and the origin of life on Earth."

Darwinian evolutionary theory is losing its grip..

My regards,

Widewing

[Holden McGroin]

Apparently he does not believe in refrigerators either.  

Inside my refrigerator the local entropy decreases.  When I step back and look at the refrigerator as a part of a larger whole, I see that entropy of the larger system increases, thus following the 2nd law of thermodynamics and bringing the universe into harmonious balance.

[Holden McGroin]

Another thing about the entropy argument:

Entropy tends to increase... it doesn't always.

If you took a deck of cards and shuffled, the disorder would tend to rise.  Shuffle the deck 7 times and they say total disorder would be achieved, at least in the opinion of Las Vegas gambling establishments.

There is the possibility, however remote, that one could take a totally random deck, shuffle it and get all the suits together and in order.  This is one possibility of a fair shuffle.  

In this one shuffle the entropy of the deck would decrease.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Widewing
Darwinian evolutionary theory is losing its grip..

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nothing to be defensive of, nor triumphant about.

This is science. That's how it works. Dr. Hubert P. Yockey is a member of the scientific community. That's what they do.

I'm all for the disproving of evolutionary theory, if in fact it can be disproven. But until then.....

Intelligent Design seems to me to be bent on marching in, planting a flag down, and saying "Guess what - there must be a God. So there. End of discussion. Don't ask me to prove that, btw. So pack it in, all you science geeks. Besides, haven't you got better things to do?"

It dismisses science. Because for science to embrace this idea, they'd have to discard what it is that science is about. The scientific method. Intelligent design and the scientific method cannot co-exist. You wouldn't just be discarding a theory, you'd be tossing a whole process down the toilet.

Think it through.

If you want kids to be educated to become lazy script reciters, then ya might as well kiss NASA, alternative fuels, the latest in automotive gizmos and whatever else good-bye. Because that is what the scientific method produces.

Science and Intelligent Design cannot co-exist, and ya can't have it both ways.

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is also not logical to come to the conclusion that a superior intellegence is required.

Logic = Science....   Faith = Religion  ....  Logic does not = Faith

I'm saying that it's not logical to dismiss it. You have dismissed it.

[Holden McGroin]

Read my post again: I did not dismiss anything.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Nash
Science and Intelligent Design cannot co-exist, and ya can't have it both ways.

Odd assumption. What do you base this on?

I think many people posting in this thread don't realize the level of faith they are putting in science.

[Nash]

(Deja - please keep in mind - I am wading in waaaay over my head here. With that said.....).

I think you might be confusing science with the theories that science has produced.

To embrace ID is to reject the Scientific Method. Because ID cannot stand up to the scrutiny of that process.

Sure, the theory of evolution may be wrong. It may be proven false one day. But that will only happen via scientific method. For now, it's just a theory. That's why they call it The Theory of Evolution.

I don't have faith in theories, nor do I have faith in religious dogma. I accept them for what they are. I do have faith in the process though. At least for now, it seems to me to be the best we got.

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Read my post again: I did not dismiss anything.

Then you must be open minded to ID ? Maybe our schools should be just as open minded.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Widewing
Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

Uh, Earth isn't in a closed system.  We got a ginormous nuclear reactor feeding massive amounts of energy, and will continue to do so for about another 100 billion years.

[vorticon]

Originally posted by Godzilla
Then you must be open minded to ID ? Maybe our schools should be just as open minded.

thats what parents and church are for.

[Holden McGroin]

A clarification of what I said is that Intellegent Design requires an Intellegent Designer.

There is no scientific evidence of an Intellegent Designer.  If there were, recruitment for religions would be much simpler.

Religious belief requires a 'Leap of Faith' which by definition is illogical and unscientific.  Not necessarily bad, just illogical and unscientific.

I see no problem in teaching that some scientists stray from the method and believe their own faith based beliefs.  I see no reason to discourage a discussion of differences of opinion on any issue within the scientific community.

ID requires belief in God as a premise and therefore is unscientific.

Science class is for measuring and experimenting and learning about the world with a stopwatch and tape measure and ohm meter in your hands.

Unscientific things should be taught in unscience class.  

[Nash]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Unscientific things should be taught in unscience class.  

Nicely put!

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by Nash
Nicely put!

Maybe, if you are close mined. I happen to be open minded.